Fetch a compact outline of an Apache NiFi process group to inspect its child groups, processors, connections, and ports before building or debugging flows.
Compact outline of a process group: child groups, processors, connections, ports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the default return is a 'compact outline', which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It stops short of covering size/pagination or depth limits of the outline, so a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with zero filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified rather than perfectly economical.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not the description's burden, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a tool whose nearest siblings include export/import/replace flow operations, the description should say why you would call this read-only outline instead, and it does not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Top-level schema coverage is 0% (the only exposed param is an unlabeled 'params' object), yet the nested ProcessGroupIn $def does document both fields, including the 'root' default and the verbose/compact distinction. The description adds nothing beyond that, so it neither compensates for the awkward top-level wrapping nor improves on the nested docs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The phrase names the resource (process group) and enumerates what the outline contains (child groups, processors, connections, ports), so an agent can infer it returns a structural view. However it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from siblings like nifi_export_flow or nifi_apply_flow_spec, which also deal with flow structure. Adequate but not sharp.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative of exporting the flow (nifi_export_flow) or of viewing a single processor (nifi_get_processor). The agent must guess from the name alone that this is the lightweight topology view.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.